United States District Court, D. Nebraska
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RICHARD G. KOPF, SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
instituted this action on January 4, 2016. (Filing No.
1.) Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint on
May 20, 2016. (Filing No. 10.) For the reasons that
follow, the court will require Plaintiffs to file a second
amended complaint, or face dismissal of this action.
First Amended Complaint (“Amended Complaint”) is
extremely long and almost impossible to decipher. The Amended
Complaint is thirty-nine pages long and incorporates an
additional eighty-seven pages of exhibits. (Filing No.
10.) The Amended Complaint attempts to assert claims
under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act
(“RICO”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1961, et seq.;
the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (“CFAA”), 18
U.S.C. §§ 1030, et seq.; and the Fair
Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 3601, et seq.
Plaintiff also purports to allege Bivens
violations and various state law claims. The Amended
Complaint is rambling and seems to include allegations
pertaining to unrelated acts of wrongdoing by Defendants. It
also contains a lengthy narrative of multiple other court
cases involving Plaintiff Holli Lundahl.
court has carefully reviewed Plaintiffs’ Amended
Complaint, as well as the accompanying exhibits, and finds
that the Amended Complaint fails to comply with Rule 8 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 8 requires that every
complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”
and that “each allegation . . . be simple, concise, and
direct.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8. A complaint must state enough
to “give the defendant fair notice of what the . . .
claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.”
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007)
(quotation omitted). Although a pro se plaintiff’s
allegations should be liberally construed, pro se litigants
must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
Burgs v. Sissel, 745 F.2d 526, 528 (8th Cir. 1984)
(“[P]ro se litigants are not excused from failing to
comply with substantive and procedural law”).
Amended Complaint is so long and convoluted that the court
cannot determine with any certainty the legal and factual
basis for Plaintiffs’ claims. Additionally, the court
questions whether the Amended Complaint even attempts to
assert legitimate claims. Plaintiff Holli
Lundahl has a lengthy history of filing frivolous
actions. In fact, multiple other courts, including the United
States Supreme Court, have placed filing restrictions on Ms.
Lundahl. See Lundahl v. Eli Lilly & Co., 544
U.S. 997 (2005) (“As petitioner has repeatedly abused
this Court’s process, the Clerk is directed not to
accept any further petitions in noncriminal matters from
petitioner unless the docketing fee . . . is paid”);
Lundahl v. Nar Inc., 434 F.Supp.2d 855 (D. Idaho
2006) (enjoining Plaintiff from instituting civil suits pro
se without first obtaining leave of court); Lundahl v.
Hawkins, SA-09-CA-0588-XR, 2009 WL 3617518 (W.D. Tex.
Oct. 27, 2009) (dismissing Plaintiff’s complaint as
frivolous and enjoining Plaintiff from filing any civil suit
in Texas federal courts against certain defendants without
first obtaining leave of court); Lundahl v. Eli Lilly and
Co., No. 13-CV-241-SWS, 2014 WL 347157 (D. Wyo. Jan. 30,
2014) (noting Plaintiff’s extensive history of abusive
litigation and enjoining Plaintiff and all of her aliases
from proceeding as a plaintiff in any civil matter in the
District of Wyoming unless she is represented by counsel or
obtains permission to proceed pro se).
out of an abundance of caution, the court will grant
Plaintiffs leave to file a second amended complaint. Should
Plaintiffs fail to file a second amended complaint by the
deadline set by the court, this action will be dismissed
without further notice.
ORDERED that Plaintiffs shall file a second amended complaint
no later than July 14, 2016. Should Plaintiffs fail to do so,
this action will be dismissed without further notice. The
clerk of court is directed to set a case management deadline
using the following text: July 14, 2016: check for second
 “Under [Bivens v. Six
Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403
U.S. 388 (1971)], an individual has a cause of action against
a federal official in his individual capacity for damages
arising out of the official’s violation of the United
States Constitution under color of federal law or
authority.” Dry v. United States, 235 F.3d
1249, 1255 (10th Cir. 2000) (emphasis omitted).
 Plaintiff Holli Lundahl has used
multiple aliases in pervious suits, including “Holli
Telford.” See Lundahl v. Nar Inc., 434
F.Supp.2d 855, 860 n.2 (D. Idaho May 24, 2006)
(“Plaintiff [Holli Lundahl] has employed numerous
aliases in her past litigation including, but not limited to,
H.M. Telford, M.H. Telford, Marti Telford, Holli Lundahl, H.
Lundahl, H.T. Lundahl, Marti Lundahl, and Holly Mattie
Telford”). Holli Lundahl, using the alias “Holli